DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 04/20/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-21 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 14-19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dachs (US 20120150192 A1) in view of Grygorowicz (WO 0238342 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Dachs discloses a method of operating a surgical instrument (see Fig. 6A; 70); an actuation interface (see Fig. 5A and 6A; interface between 22 and 70) of a teleoperable manipulator (22). Dachs fails to disclose an actuation element to transmit force along an instrument shaft, the method comprising: driving rotational movement of a worm drive of a force transmission mechanism at a proximal end portion of the instrument shaft, wherein the instrument shaft has a shaft longitudinal axis; converting the rotational movement of the worm drive into pivoting movement of a linkage of the force transmission mechanism; causing linear translational movement of the actuation element along a longitudinal axis of the actuation element and in a direction substantially parallel to the shaft longitudinal axis of the instrument shaft by the pivoting movement of the linkage; and converting the linear translational movement of the actuation element into movement of a movable component coupled to a distal portion of the instrument shaft. However, Grygorowicz teaches an actuation element (see Fig. 7, element between 1 and 22) to transmit force along an instrument shaft (shaft on which 1 slides), comprising: driving rotational movement of a worm drive (6) of a force transmission mechanism (internal mechanism of 10) at a proximal end portion of the instrument shaft, wherein the instrument shaft has a shaft longitudinal axis (axis of the shaft on which 1 slides); converting the rotational movement of the worm drive into pivoting movement of a linkage (22) of the force transmission mechanism; causing linear translational movement of the actuation element along a longitudinal axis of the actuation element (longitudinal axis of the element between 1 and 22) and in a direction substantially parallel to the shaft longitudinal axis of the instrument shaft by the pivoting movement of the linkage (see Fig. 7); and converting the linear translational movement of the actuation element into movement of a movable component (1) coupled to a distal portion of the instrument shaft (see Fig. 7; see attached English translation, wherein the operation of the device in Fig. 7 is disclosed). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Dachs with the force transmission as taught by Grygorowicz, for facilitating the adjustment of a clamping force of each piece, after the jaws are closed, while using a low power motor in order to save energy and reduce the size of the clamp (see attached English translation of 09/22/2025, page 1 last paragraph to page 2 first paragraph).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of claim 14 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: converting the rotational movement of the worm drive (Grygorowicz; 6) into pivoting movement of the linkage (Grygorowicz; 22) of the force transmission mechanism comprises moving a follower member (Grygorowicz; 12) at first end portion of the linkage (Grygorowicz; portion of 22 closest to 12) along the worm drive and causing pivoting motion of the linkage about a pivot axis (Grygorowicz; axis of 24) at a second end portion of the linkage opposite the first end portion (Grygorowicz; portion of 22 comprising 24).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of claim 14 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the pivot axis (Grygorowicz; axis of 24) is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the actuation element (Grygorowicz; longitudinal axis of the element between 1 and 22) and of shaft longitudinal axis of the instrument shaft (Grygorowicz; axis of the shaft on which 1 slides).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of claim 14 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the actuation element (Grygorowicz; element between 1 and 22) is coupled to the linkage (Grygorowicz; 22) at an intermediate portion of the linkage (Grygorowicz; portion of 22 closet to the element between 1 and 22) between the first end portion (Grygorowicz; portion of 22 closest to 12) and the second end portion (Grygorowicz; portion of 22 comprising 24).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of claim 14 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the movable component (Grygorowicz; 1) comprises a jaw mechanism (Grygorowicz; see Fig. 7), and wherein converting the linear translational movement of the actuation element (Grygorowicz; element between 1 and 22) into movement of the movable component comprises converting the linear translational movement of the actuation element into opening or closing of the jaw mechanism (Grygorowicz; see Fig. 3-4 wherein movement of 1 is shown).
Regarding claim 19, Dachs discloses driving rotational movement of the instrument shaft about the shaft longitudinal axis (see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 21, Dachs discloses the output drive force from the actuation interface (interface between 22 and 70) of a teleoperable manipulator (22) occurs in response to an input command at a surgeon console (see Fig. 1; 16) external to the teleoperable manipulator (see Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-13 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest prior art of record, Manzo (US 20120310254 A1), does not anticipate that “the linkage extending from the worm drive to the actuation element, and the linkage having a first link portion engaged with the worm drive and a second link portion engaged with the actuation element” as recited in claim 1. The prior art of record does not provide any teaching, suggestion or motivation to modify toward the entirety of applicant's claimed invention. Further, there was no cogent reasoning elsewhere available to one of ordinary skill that was unequivocally independent of improper hindsight of applicant's invention and that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify the prior art to obtain the applicant' s invention.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/20/2026, with respect to claim 14, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments have already been addressed in the Final Office Action mailed 02/19/2026.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH BROWN whose telephone number is (313)446-6568. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 571-357-2384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights